Uber ordered to pay $40m over death of woman put out of car on California freeway
An arbitrator ordered Uber to pay $40m to the parents of a 23-year-old woman killed after a driver put her and a friend out of his car on a freeway, ruling the company vicariously liable. The company disputes the decision.
A retired California judge acting as arbitrator has ordered Uber to pay $40m to the parents of Emily Normandin-Parker, a 23-year-old woman killed in August 2023 after being put out of a ride-share vehicle. Arbitrator Richard A Stone found Uber "vicariously liable" for the driver's negligence.
Normandin-Parker and her friend Luna Moore had hailed an Uber after a night out in Orange County. The driver pulled over on the 73 freeway after Normandin-Parker vomited in the car. While Moore and the driver argued over a cleaning fee, Normandin-Parker got out, wandered into oncoming traffic and was struck by a car.
Uber's liability argument rejected
The family accused both the driver and Uber of negligence. Uber argued it was merely "a technology company that provides a software platform" connecting riders with independent contractor drivers, pointing to California's Prop 22, which classifies Uber and Lyft drivers as independent contractors rather than employees — a status the company typically uses to argue it bears no liability for drivers' actions.
The arbitrator rejected this, ruling Uber should be treated as a "common carrier" and therefore vicariously liable. The documents state that using a digital interface instead of street hails does not change the fundamental nature of the service, and that Prop 22 does not shield Uber from vicarious liability for its drivers' actions.
Uber spokesperson Gabriela Condarco-Quesada said the company respects the arbitration process but believes the arbitrator was wrong, adding that Uber has continued strengthening safety measures, including new guidance to drivers about avoiding drop-offs in unsafe locations.
The family also said Uber had at one point proposed a settlement requiring confidentiality, with a $10m penalty for speaking publicly about the incident; the family rejected it, and Uber said it ultimately did not pursue confidentiality in the case. The ruling is not binding beyond this case, but is part of a broader battle over whether Uber should be treated as merely an online marketplace, distancing itself from drivers' actions by classifying them as contractors.
